↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009077.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martí-Carvajal, Arturo J, Kwong, Joey Sw, Kwong, Joey S W

Abstract

Chagas disease-related cardiomyopathy is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Latin America. Despite the substantial burden to the healthcare system, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012. To assess the clinical benefits and harms of current pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas cardiomyopathy. We updated the searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid; 1946 to to February Week 1 2016), EMBASE (Ovid; 1947 to 2016 Week 07), LILACS (1982 to 15 February 2016), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; 1970 to 15 February 2016). We checked the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of pharmacological interventions to treat heart failure in adult patients (18 years or older) with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association classes II to IV), regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction stage (reduced or preserved), with Chagas cardiomyopathy. We did not apply limits to the length of follow-up. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality at 30 days, time-to-heart decompensation, disease-free period (at 30, 60, and 90 days), and adverse events. Two authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We used a fixed-effect model to synthesize the findings. We contacted authors for additional data. We developed 'Summary of findings' (SoF) tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. In this update, we identified one new trial. Therefore, this version includes three trials (108 participants). Two trials compared carvedilol against placebo and another assessed rosuvastatin versus placebo. All trials had a high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of two trials showed a lower proportion of all-cause mortality in the carvedilol groups compared with the placebo groups (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88, I² = 0%; 69 participants; very low-quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on cardiovascular mortality, time-to-heart decompensation, or disease-free periods.One trial (30 participants) found no difference in hospital readmissions (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.31 to 3.28; very low-quality of evidence) or reported adverse events (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.27; very low-quality of evidence) between the carvedilol and placebo groups.There was very low-quality evidence from two trials of inconclusive effects on quality of life (QoL) between the carvedilol and placebo groups. One trial (30 participants) assessed QoL with the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (21 items; item scores range from 0 to 5; a lower MLHFQ score is better). The MD was -14.74; 95% CI -24.75 to -4.73. The other trial (39 participants) measured QoL with the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36; item scores range from 0 to 100; higher SF-36 score is better). Data were not provided.One trial (39 participants) assessed the effect of rosuvastatin versus placebo. The trial did not report on any primary outcomes or adverse events. There was very low-quality evidence of uncertain effects on QoL (no data were provided). This first update of our review found very low-quality evidence for the effects of either carvedilol or rosuvastatin, compared with placebo, for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease. The three included trials were underpowered and had a high risk of bias. There were no conclusive data to support or reject the use of either carvedilol or rosuvastatin for treating Chagas cardiomyopathy. Unless randomised clinical trials provide evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, policy-makers, clinicians, and academics should be cautious when recommending or administering either carvedilol or rosuvastatin to treat heart failure in people with Chagas disease. The efficacy and safety of other pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease remains unknown.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 23%
Researcher 17 14%
Unspecified 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 35 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 41%
Unspecified 20 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Psychology 9 8%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 21 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,063,084
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,205
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,226
of 267,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.